STATE CHILD ABDUCTIONS
PREFACE - The "U.N. Convention (Treaty) on the Rights of the
Child" contains the following statement:
- "For human rights activists every where this work is invaluable
to promote this new concept of separate rights for children
with the Government accepting responsibility for protecting the
child from the power of the parents."
(In Executive Order # 13107 President Clinton imposed the
provisions of this treaty even though it has never been ratified by the
Senate).
In a message dated 10/29/1999 5:33:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
avoice@molalla.net writes:
Parents Gather Against DSS In Candlelight Vigil on Cape Cod
State condemned for child abductions
Massachusetts News
By Edward G. Oliver
October 29--A solemn group of distraught parents assembled at the
Village Green in Hyannis on Sunday evening, October 17th.
The drizzly weather matched their mood as they set up for a lonely
candlelight vigil. They were there to draw notice to the plight of
their children scattered in foster homes and facilities, some of whom
are suffering, according to the parents.
They dedicated this third annual vigil to "the seventy-one children
who have died in the past 4 years while in the 'protective care' of
DSS." Their organization is "Justice For Families," a parents' support
group comprised of people who are battling to get their children back
from DSS.
Against a wall on the sheltered stage, a row of signs voice silent
screams reading, "Save the children from the child-savers, help us
light their way home," "Governor Cellucci, 71 dead foster children is
not a 'few mistakes,' how do you sleep at night?" and "Missing: DSS
took Tarri." A flyer reads, "STATE LEGISLATORS need to hear our stories
& make drastic changes to STOP state sanctioned child abductions."
DSS spokesman David Van Dam denies that seventy-one have died in
state custody but declined to give a number. "I don't have that number,
but it's lower," he tells Massachusetts News. Nev Moore, founder of the
group claims Van Dam himself gave her that number in a moment of candor
that surprised her.
Founded In 1997
Nev and Tom Moore from Barnstable founded the group in early 1997
only weeks after DSS suddenly seized their two children. DSS had taken
notice of the family after a one-time domestic incident between the two
outside the house thirteen months prior. Nev, who feels she's seen
enough to justify her cynicism, theorizes perhaps DSS had some slots to
fill for their vendors and went looking through old case files for
potential candidates. "They need twenty to twenty five children a day
to place with their vendors to justify their half-billion dollar
budget," says Moore, adding she was lucky to get her children back.
From that eye-opening experience, she grew to be a knowledgeable and
tenacious family rights advocate.
As darkness settled, Nev Moore began to speak as an intimate friend
to the row of candlelit faces while standing behind a literature table
holding a microphone, "It weighs heavily on my heart to see so many of
the same faces, because I know that means that we're now going into our
third year where you've been separated from your children and your
children have been separated from you. I know you are still carrying
the wounds that have been inflicted by this out-of-control bureaucracy.
"I know whose children have been abused and harmed in foster care,
and I know whose children have been raped. I know whose children have
been drugged into submission, and I know whose children are covered in
injuries and bruises from daily violent restraints and straitjackets,
and I know whose children have died. All in the best interest of the
child they say, and in the loving care of the Department of Social
Services.
"If a parent has a dirty house, it's front page news, but
seventy-one dead kids don't warrant mention in the Globe or the Herald.
It's too embarrassing for the administration."
Moore describes a confrontation she had with Governor Cellucci on
WRKO asking him why he won't demand an investigation into the deaths of
seventy-one children. "Governor Cellucci responded by saying, 'I'm
tired of hearing about DSS's few mistakes.' " she recounts.
"He might have been caught off-guard, but when we tell him, he has
a bound duty to listen. Are we saying our children are better off dead
in state custody than having a chance at life with their
less-than-perfect parents?" If we buy into that standard, then a lot of
high level politicians and government officials will be losing their
children; people whose dysfunctional alcoholism and social misconduct
is public knowledge. But we know that nothing happens because it's
child abuse only if you can't afford a lawyer."
Plain Folks
After meeting some of the parents, the magnitude of their loss is
clear from their emotions. These are plain folks, obviously sincere,
who readily admit their faults and imperfections but know they are good
parents who love their kids. They are eager to show photographs of
their cavorting children, faces beaming in the bosom of their family.
The stories are all similar, an argument, a fight, a slap,
absent-mindedness, a misunderstanding, normal daily human interaction
somehow gets reported to DSS and twisted into an intolerably risky
situation that demands removal of their child.
Maybe the state doesn't take the child right away, but failure to
follow the prescribed service plan of numerous appointments during
working hours will result in the loss of the child. Parents try to jump
through the hoops in hopes of getting their kids back. At first they're
afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal.
Then DSS, they say, keeps changing the rules, moving the goal posts
until eventually parents realize the kids aren't coming back without a
fight. All the while the child is traumatized by an abrupt removal to a
strange succession of places far worse than any situation at home with
the parents, if it was ever bad at home to begin with.
Among the group of twenty or so attending the vigil were Heidi
Polanza from Mashpee, who lost two daughters to DSS, and the Petersons
of Hyannis who lost all six children. Massachusetts News will take a
closer look at their experiences with DSS in future installments. Eric
Bleiken of Yarmouth attended, with his son Matt. He ran last election
as the Republican opponent to Congressman Delahunt in 1998, getting a
third of the vote. He offered moral support to the group and advised
them to work against unresponsive representatives.
Children Are Abducted by State
Nev goes on speaking to the group. "Tommy and I started this
because we realized that thousands of children are literally abducted
by government agents from loving, adequate homes and families where
there has been no abuse or neglect. We discovered that there is so much
more behind this. A huge ugly picture, a picture so frightening that I
don't even want to tell people about it. I don't want to be the
messenger of their disillusionment.
"The issue is about greed, it's about feeding children into a
gargantuan money machine. The money machine is about two-bit junk
psychologists forming multi-million dollar contracts with DSS. It's
about massive Medicaid fraud and it's about bringing federal dollars
into the state."
She then alludes to underlying causes beyond the greed, something
at a higher level that is being worked out, totalitarian in nature and
driven by ideologues, "Hillary Clinton stated openly in a speech in New
York this summer that her goal was to have a social worker in every
home, except of course her own."
Moore then took off the gloves. "The time for being nice has now
passed. We've tried being nice, we've dressed up and we've gone to the
statehouse, we've made appointments and we've had meetings, we talked
to the legislators and we talked to the media. We've asked them very
nicely to please stop the atrocities and the brutal destruction of
decent families. Being nice has not worked. The time has come to fight
for our lives and our children's lives, to fight for our Constitution
and our freedom."
Proposed Legislation Would Help "Justice for Families" has four
bills in the House which would do the following:
All questioning of children by DSS would be videotaped. A
comprehensive guide would be available to give people the benefit of
hard-won experience on how to deal with DSS, DSS would be prevented
from viewing children in a state of nudity, The fourth is what Nev
calls "Tarri's bill." It would provide a hotline that must be available
to all children in state care. Tarri is one of the Peterson's daughters
who ran away from foster care claiming abuse, was recaptured by DSS and
her whereabouts are now a mystery.
Starting a Lawsuit
Justice for Families is starting a lawsuit with attorney Greg
Hession from Belchertown who exudes confidence in his case when he
says, "Believe me, they are dead." Hession says he is probably going to
do it as a coalition with the Constitutional Legal Institute of New
England and Family Legal Service and it will require five to ten
lawyers by the time they are done. He explains DSS operates under "an
enormous and almost hideous web of federal mandates" which require
state compliance in order to keep getting federal money.
He's also working with an attorney in Utah who's filing a similar
suit. The Utah attorney informed Hession his state is getting "a
minimum of twenty-five thousand dollars per kid snatched and as much as
$250,000."
Hession says he filed a Freedom of Information Request from DSS
seeking data on federal funding and wants the cover sheets for all
revenue requests to the feds as well as an accounting of all federal
dollars: "where it came in, and where it went out." He asked for a long
list of information as well such as how many kids die in DSS custody,
how many are forced to have abortions in their custody, etc. "I'm going
to the mat on this one," he says. "Part of what they do is, they take
children so they can make money," he says matter-of-factly. "Another
part of what they do is, they destroy families instead of doing what
the law requires and that is to try to reunite them. At the bottom line
that is what they do, they destroy families."
With help from Justice for Families, he has dozens of families
lined up along with their complete case files containing "tales that
would break your heart." Instead of a class-action suit, he will
probably file the cases individually. When asked, he provides an
example of one of the cases involved, "A guy is accused of satanic,
ritual, sexual abuse. No trial, no hearing, nothing. Just one of these
209A ex parte deals, he has no idea of what's going on. The old lady
accuses him and dad hasn't seen his kids in four years with no
evidentiary hearing." He explains further, "The typical way that DSS
does this is they get involved in some way, and then they coerce the
mom to get a restraining order and throw the man out or they take the
kids. Another case I have is DSS told one of my clients he could spank
his children if they disobey; he did so, they took the kids. This is
nine months ago, hasn't seen them since. It's not just men, it's men
and women, for no reasonable basis they keep children and families
apart."
Hession explains that DSS wields the 51A child abuse reporting
statute and the 209A abuse/restraining order statute and "bounce those
two things off of each other and use them in a sort of a symbiotic way
to destroy families, I call it the 'Unholy Triumvirate.'"
Nev Moore continues her speech by raising the standard of law and
order: "Let the police handle child abuse and neglect, because if there
is no evidence of child abuse and neglect. then no one can lose their
children." She makes the point that a child suffers trauma every time
it is abruptly taken from the mother, but the use of trained
investigative professionals like the police can prevent that from
happening to innocent families.
She calls for DSS to be dismantled saying, "We need to disassemble
the multimillion dollar contracts DSS has with its service providers."
She says they are a recipe for corruption. Moore then quotes statistics
from Health and Human Services saying, "68% of all substantiated cases
of abuse and neglect do not involve child maltreatment; well what the
hell do they involve?" She then cites another statistic from HHS when
she says; "At least 1.5 million parents per year are falsely accused of
child maltreatment. We're not saying there is no such thing as child
abuse, but we're here representing the 1.5 million people! And how many
children do you think that represents? Two, three, five million
children? Massachusetts is leading the pack in these statistics. Child
protective services is a 12 billion-dollar per year industry in this
country, and Massachusetts gets at least half a billion. You do the
math. Who's getting the biggest piece of that pie? Massachusetts."
see also: Shared
Parenting Forum
State 3rd
Party in Marriage!
From: "Richard James, McDonald"
Subject: Good one, must read...]A Love Triangle, ha, ha...]]
TO ALL: One of our members in NJ is at this very moment having his
case being transferred to the Law Division from the Family Division.
Why? Because he has filed petitions to divorce the government from his
life. The courts are in an uproar over this and he is getting press
coverage. The courts and press originally called him a "gadfly" and
"loose cannon" but they are beginning to take him seriously. He has
sued judges in one county in federal court. Because of this, he created
a conflict of interest and they can no longer hear his cases. They had
to bring judges in from another county. He is bringing suit against
those judges as well. In NJ and NY we have found cases that say:
- "the state is a party at interest to the marriage contract
or status together with the husband and wife", Duerner v.
Duerner, 142 NJEq. 759 (under C.J.S. Marriage licenses); Anonymous v.
Anonymous, 62 NYS2d 130.
Also,
- "For many years the law has been that the state is a third
party, in fact if not in name, in every divorce action". Welch
v. Welch, 35 N.J.Super. 255.
-
- "Where there is a conflict between the interests of the
state and the interests of either of the spouses, the interests of the
state will be regarded as paramount". Feikert v. Feikert, 98
N.J.Eq. 444.
If the state has become a party, they can be sued as well. They do
not have sovereign immunity. I would like to know how the state became
a party to a marriage contract without ever telling anyone, without
offering any consideration or any specific performance (all elements
necessary to have a contract). If they are a party, let them provide
performance and consideration. I want the state to make me a
millionaire, pay for a trip around the world for me and my new wife,
buy me a Rolls-Royce for every day of the week. If they want to be a
party to the marriage then they have to perform. Next time you want to
find out who are the parties on a marriage license, look at the top of
the license. It says State of ______ Dept. of Health or some such
government agency. That is what they claim gives them 3rd party status.
Well, if they are a third party I want damages for their interference
with my marriage and parent-child relationship. I believe $19 Billion
(the NJ Budget) is in order. Bruce Eden, Divorce Reform Coalition of NJ
Have a great day
Richard James, McDonald
ICQ 259224
Fire Talk 30630
More on
Marriages
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC: Marriage w/o gov't permission
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris <ckerr@netcom.com>
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, dsipper@up.net wrote:
> I'm looking for information about getting married without
obtaining a license from any kind of "gov't" entity.
Charles A. Weisman put out a book called Laws and Principles of
Marriage. A name search on the web should turn it up. Otherwise contact
me by direct e-mail and I can dig it up.
> I think two people should be able to marry and simply sign
along with witnesses a "certificate"; only to serve as "legal" evidence
of the two person's intent to bind themselves in marriage.
It is only in the last decade (since the Uniform Marriage and
Marriage License Act around 1923), that people moved from getting
Marriage Certificates to licenses. But anyone can do either,
- "Marriage is a natural right. It was not created by law. It
existed before all law. Marriage is a right of personality."
Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 105.
And according to Weisman:
In fact, I don't see why anyone would want to apply for a so-called
'license', "having their rights limited under the terms of its issuer
(the State). The State exercises its restrictions and limitations over
the most prevalent and important product of the marriage it sanctions -
that being the children. The terms of the marriage license that
pertains to the children, derived through the marriage, are so
all-encompassing that the State actually takes legal possession of
them, while allowing the parents to retain physical possession. Thus
the State actually becomes the legal guardian of the children making
the child a ward of the State.
- "Since marriage is a type of contract it was often found
appropriate to formalize the terms and conditions of the marriage by
setting them to writing and then signed by those involved. The marriage
certificate acts as an evidence or an official record that a marriage
did in fact take place. While its use was not made a requirement in all
the various states, when it is used, "the general rule is that a
properly authenticated marriage certificate or record is admissible to
prove the marriage" - American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., Vol 52,
154. Also see Gains v. Relf, 12 U.S. 472 (1851).
Generally the custom in the so-called USA is the publication of
marriage plans prior to marriage (announces the marriage to the
community and gives time for objections... running it in the paper for
2 weeks should be good), parental consent (in person to town or county
clerk or in writing), a formal ceremony and the marriage certificate
signed by the officiant, husband, wife and witnesses (a minimum of
two). It used to be registered too, the records to be kept by town or
county clerk or registrar (if no registrar, then by officiant).
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC: Marriage w/o gov't permission
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:18:57 -0400
From: Charles Talley <ctalley@macisp.net>
THERE IS A VERY HELPFUL LADY THAT HAS A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE
PACKAGE: "HOW TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE THAT IS HONORED BY LAW AND GOD,
WITHOUT A LICENSE MAKING THE STATE A THIRD PARTY AND THE "KEEPER OF
YOUR MORALS". INCLUDES MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE . 50.00 FRN's She is Lynne
Meredith at We The People.
Check or money order- c/o 17011 Beach Blvd. #900 Huntington Beach
Calif. 92647 714 375-6630 fax 714 375 6699 She has the best information
on sovereignty, income tax fed and state and many other frauds. She is
a lawyer and has never filed a 1040 form in her life and has never been
hassled. if you understood sovereignty then you would understand the
answer to some other things you mentioned. Anyway that I can help you
to be free, I love it Charles D. Talley
dsipper@up.net wrote:
> I'm looking for information about getting married without
obtaining a license from any kind of "gov't" entity.
I believe most gov'ts recognize marriage as a "civil" contract. The
US Constitution specifies no state can infringe upon a person's right
to contract. Common sense (I know--somewhat an oxymoron in today's
society) therefore dictates that two people can marry without first
obtaining a license.
> I think two people should be able to marry and simply sign
along with witnesses a "certificate"; only to serve as "legal" evidence
of the two person's intent to bind themselves in marriage.
I realize most people "authorized" to "officiate" weddings will
probably not participate in this idea. No license, no marriage will be
the majority attitude.
> I'm not interested in flying to some remote part of the world
to avoid a license. I just want to exercise some basic "Constitutional
protected" rights.
Furthermore, traditionally a woman changes her last name to that of
her husband's (please, no social commentaries--I'm just looking for
practical applications). If one marries without a license, will the
wife, if she chooses to change her name, experience problems because
the gov't has no record (license) of the marriage?
If two people marry without a license, what recommendations do you
have to maintain autonomy in a gov't system that will most likely
attempt to "void" or not recognize the marriage since no license was
ever applied for?
Etc., etc.
Any comments and direction to further reading is appreciated.
TIA
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC: Marriage w/o gov't permission
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:44:52 -0400
From: phntmfngrs <phntmfngrs@bigfoot.com>
...throw my 2 cents worth in...
I'm a pastor who 2 years ago ceased signing gov. marriage
certificates.... several reasons, primary among them was that I grew
tired of people marrying in the "eyes of God", then throwing the
marriage and their children upon the mercy of the court when things
became tough....
Through the years I have been doing a little research... Black's
Law Dictionary gives the following definition of a "marriage
licence."...
- "a license or permission granted by public authority to
persons who intend to intermarry, usually addressed to the minister or
magistrate who is to perform the ceremony, or, in general terms, to any
one authorized to solemnize marriages. By statute in most
jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful
solemnization of the marriage."
-
I was intriqued by the word "intermarry"....Black's defines it as
"See miscegenation"..so I did....Miscegenation -
- "mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage
between persons of different races."
What are the ramifications of this? Were "marriage licences"
established for governmental control of marriage of differing races?
What races are involved?
It looks obvious that that which was established for one purpose is
now considered to be a "standard practice" in our culture. Stay the
course. Refuse the licence.
Blessings!
dsipper@up.net wrote:
> I'll search for the book. Some good cites, too. Thanks.
Congrats are premature. There is a fine lady with whom I hope--ah,
I'm just thinking ahead. I just can't stand the thought of any gov't
granting "permission" for something that has existed long before gov'ts
even dreamed of giving permission. To me, a marriage is a covenant
between two people. The gov't? Who are they?
Subject: [fwo] PRAC/ESEX/CURE: Marriage
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:36:23 PDT
From: "nonconformist, fool" <desertrat@hotmail.com>
Marriage without government permission?
What is this "permission?"
If something belongs to me and you ask to use it, I give you my
permission. If you want to do something TO me or WITH me, I give you my
permission. But I can't give you permission to take something that
doesn't belong to me, you must get permission from someone else,
whoever owns it, and I can't give you permission to do something to or
with another person, you must get that permission from that other
person.
If two people who want to live together, be "married," they must
give each other their permission first, and it seems to me that these
are the only people who need or can give their permission.
"Government" is not really something that can own people or things.
"Government" can't give or deny permission unless you believe that
"government" is something more than what it really is, that is,
control, force and fraud. To imagine that "government" can deny you the
permission to live with another person, or to imagine that it is
necessary to get some license from the "government" before "marriage,"
is to imagine that "government" is some sort of sentient being or
entity that can own you, that you are not the owner of yourself, or
that the person you wish to "marry" is not the owner of himself or
herself. It is to believe that you are, or that the person you intend
to "marry" is, not free.
You are enlightened to a degree if you believe that your choice of
who you wish to live with, have sex with, "marry," is none of the
"government's" business. You are more enlightened if you believe that
the only persons whose business it is are those persons who choose
voluntarily to live together, have sex with each other or "marry."
Whatever conditions are placed on the association, whatever "contracts"
are signed, are no one's business but those persons involved.
If two people choose to live together, they must give each other
permission. This permission is a "contract" whether it takes the form
of a written document, a verbal agreement or even a non-verbal
"understanding."
> My "contract" is between me, my future wife, and God.
First, if it is between you and your future spouse, you must give
permission to each other, this is how things are done without the
"government's" permission. Beyond that, if you believe there is a "god"
that must also give "his" permission, then go get it in whatever way
you believe that "god" gives it.
It is unfortunate that so many humans have these kinds of delusions
and even more unfortunate that they act on them by attempting to
disrupt "marriages" of men with men, of women with women and of
multiple men and women in triads and other multiple "marriages,"
believing that such voluntary arrangements can be forcibly disrupted
because some "god" has not given "his" permission.
> I'm not interested in living with a woman without marriage.
That is not an option for me.
In other words, you believe that not only do you need to give your
future spouse your permission to live with you, and she needs to give
you her permission to live with her, but you need to get permission
from someone else, not "government," maybe not "society," but perhaps
from some "god," and you are interested in finding out how to get that
permission so that you can show others that you are "officially
married" and not just living with each other without anyone's
permission other than you and your future mate.
It sounds a bit strange to me.
The big difference between "getting married" and just living
together is this thing known as the "marriage contract."
But whenever two people choose to begin a close association, they
form some sort of a "contract" or "understanding" if only that each
will continue to associate with the other so long as it is pleasing for
them to do so.
It's unfortunate that when two people begin a close intimate
relationship, they don't bother explaining to each other what
expectations each has of their future mate.
In the case of a simple friendship, when one individual doesn't
live up to the other individual's expectations, they resolve the
problem if it's easy enough to resolve or they discontinue the
association. The intensity of emotions in intimate relations and the
complexities of starting a family naturally make living together as
mates much more difficult.
Unfortunately, the less verbal the "understanding" is, the greater
your disappointment will be when you discover that what you understood
was not the same as what your partner understood. Each person forming
part of the relationship, whether they call themselves spouses or just
friends, has certain expectations of the other person that the other
person may not be aware of. You would be wise to forget about your
expectations and enjoy the other person's company for what it is at the
moment, and for as long as that moment lasts.
> I'm not interested in flying to some remote part of the world
to avoid a license. I just want to exercise some basic "Constitutional
protected" rights.
Is the constitution supposed to guarantee a person's right to "get
married" without the "government's" permission? I don't get it.
On the other hand, I'm opposed to the idea of "marriage"
philosophically, so it's not surprising that I don't get it.
For anyone interested in the philosophical argument against
marriage, I've included some articles on my web page taken from
Benjamin Tucker's "Liberty."
The Abolition of Marriage < http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6181/abolmar.htm
>
The Woman Question < http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6181/womanq.htm
>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:32:29 -0500
From: Craig Alan <cmears@southeast.net>
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC: Love & the IRS
Oscar J Meyer wrote:
I am brand new to your group; I like all I see so far, & I'm
not sure if practical politics and love-life problems are appropriate
for this forum, but here goes:
A "40-something" lady who has recently gotten herself out of the
IRS snare, is planning to re-marry a successful entrepreneur who has
his own 1-man excavation business (for twenty years). He plans on using
her as a deduction on his Income Tax Forms. He is a middle-of-the-road
Christian-establishment businessman who knows not, and apparently cares
not for our legal and historical truths. She is a Christian physical
therapist who has awoken to reality, and does not want to get re-snared.
Except for this political difference, they are much in love, with a
March wedding date. What will work in this situation---any compromises?
What would be your advice for this couple, if you were "Dear Ayn Rand
Landers...?"
ThanX
Oscar
Dear Oscar:
Will the marriage be State sanctioned as evidenced by the
application for a marriage license?
Will the wife give her husband her social security number so that
he may use it on his tax form?
If yes, then she is screwed. Welcome back into the world!!!
I suggest
1. She pay him $1200 or so a year to compensate him for not getting
his tax deduction.
2. They enjoy the Covenant of Marriage, a sacrament of the Church,
and leave the State out of their blissful existance. If anybody is
screwing her then let it be her husband and not a menage-a-trois.
Craig
From: jph@cvtv.net
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC - Marriage License
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:07:39 -0700
If one looks up the definition of "marriage license" in a law
dictionary, it seems that the privilege is granted, by the state, for
"inter-racial" marriages. This obviously dates the origination of the
licensing to a more prejudiced time.
Otherwise a "marriage contract" would be the most traditional form,
even if it is only a record of the event in a family bible (which is
not necessarily the same as the "holy" bible).
Which brings up another bit of information not commonly known.
"Bible" is not a specifically religious term, as the roots of the
word [biblia] translates originally from Byblos, a Phonecian city which
exported papyrus. A bible is merely a book, however it has been
generalized to mean the religious variety in most cases. Webster does
offer another definition - "A publication that is considered
authoritative for it's subject" that would apply to the use in the term
"Family Bible" in a non-religious sense.
A "Family Bible" is then the record of births, deaths and marriages
within a particular family. Prior to Big Brother keeping all the
information on everyone, the individual families would keep their own
records in the "Family Bible," a biblography of the geneology of the
family.
Granted, many "Holy" bibles also have pages for this information.
Making them a multipurpose bible which chronicles both the family and
the religious aspects.
Sharing another relatively useless piece of trivia,
Tanstaafl
From - Mon Sep 27 20:40:34 1999
From: steve.tassio@cobe.com
Subject: RE: [fwo] PRAC - Marriage License
Hello Gordon,
It sounds like you have hit the the nail on the head regarding
marriage. The reason the STATE OF issues you a license is so that the
Prince (governor) can adjudicate your marriage for you (as well as make
money for fees etc) At common law a marriage was non dissolvable even
given that Jesus said divorce was permitted for adultery. Marriage was
handled by ecclesiastical courts which had jurisdiction over everyone
because in England there was a state religion. Here with freedom of
religion ecclesiastical courts are impractical if not impossible. By
making your marriage a commerce contract the Prince can nullify it for
you (for a fee of course). Also by granting you the 'privilege' to be
married the Prince can stick his nose under your tent side. The only
thing I would comment on is that you might want to have a 'Certficate
of Marriage' rather than a 'Marriage Certificate'. It is obviously a
word thing but words are important in law. Perhaps someone on the list
is better at these constructions than I am. But nevertheless, all the
best and congratulations!
I am America - Don't Tread on Me!
Steve Tassio
Brothers in Christ and Sons of Liberty
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" Benjamin Franklin, July
1776
Steve.Tassio@cobe.com
The Truth is here... http://members.iex.net/~stassio
From: eb@financier.com [mailto:eb@financier.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:14
To: fwo@topica.com
Subject: [fwo] PRAC - Marriage License
Dear Scott,
Keep up the great work - I always read your posts among the first
(of the thousand or so to arrive daily ;-). I am writing with regard to
the inquiry below which you received pertaining to the "marriage
license". The best question that budding (and engaged) patriots can ask
themselves on this topic is this:
"Is our desire to marry each other a common law covenant of
inalienable Right ordained and blessed by God, or a state regulated
privilege granted by Caesar upon application for permission?"
